Must Utah courts complete unsolemnized marriage proceedings within one year? Clark v. Clark Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in Clark v. Clark clarified a crucial timing requirement for establishing unsolemnized marriages under Utah Code section 30-1-4.5, holding that only the filing of a petition—not its adjudication—must occur within one year of the relationship’s termination.

Background and Facts

Linda and Cecil Clark divorced in 1985 but resumed living together shortly thereafter, cohabitating for eleven years until their final separation in August 1996. In October 1996, Linda filed an action to establish an unsolemnized marriage and obtain a divorce. However, discovery delays caused by Cecil’s non-compliance postponed proceedings. The trial court found that an unsolemnized marriage existed, but the formal order was not entered until September 1997—more than one year after the relationship ended.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Utah Code section 30-1-4.5(2) required the determination or establishment of an unsolemnized marriage to be completed within one year of the relationship’s termination, or whether timely filing of the petition was sufficient. Cecil argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the order was entered after the one-year deadline.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court relied on its previous decision in In re Marriage of Gonzalez, which interpreted the statute as requiring only the filing of a petition within one year. The Court reasoned that requiring completion of adjudication within the limitation period would create potential constitutional challenges based on equal protection and due process, as parties could lose their rights due to court delays beyond their control. The Court expressly overruled Bunch v. Englehorn and held that Gonzalez applies equally to actions seeking both establishment of marriage and divorce.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important clarity for family law practitioners handling unsolemnized marriage cases. Attorneys should file petitions promptly after relationship termination to ensure compliance with the one-year deadline, but can proceed with confidence that discovery disputes or court scheduling delays will not invalidate a timely-filed action. The Court’s emphasis on avoiding constitutional challenges suggests strong precedential weight for this interpretation.